WILLIAMS V. ROFFEY BROS LTD

Williams v. Roffey Bros Ltd. (Case analysis)



Williams v. Roffey Bros Ltd. (Case analysis)

Introduction

This situation is very controversial (Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1) in some cases; there is a contractual obligation which goes to show that the performance of the new agreement can be taken into account. The traditional view is already an advantage for the party functions already fulfulled offer was that the other party to do something. This policy is a legal obligation in exchange for Collins v Godefroy 1831) can be seen in Collins v Godefroy (1831), a similar effect. Consideration is a cornerstone of contractual agreements and is defined in Currie v Misa1 as 'some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.' Performance of a pre-existing contractual duty owed to a promisor for a promise of additional payment has traditionally been unenforceable for want of fresh consideration for the new promise. There is no legal advantage accruing to the promisor or detriment to the promisee. This traditional view was challenged in the seminal case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd2 (hereafter Roffey Bros), where legal advantage was restored with a idea of functional benefit. This has lead to a plethora of academic opinion criticizing this new test and the erosion of the traditional rule, however, the practical significance of the decision in the courts has caused less of a stir.

Discussion

Roffey Bros bound to refurbish twenty-seven apartments and sub-bound the carpentry work to Williams. Williams finished nine apartments but was incapable to entire due to economic difficulties. Roffey Bros, cognizant of their liability under their major contract for malfunction to entire on time, acquiesced to pay Williams an added fee on timely culmination of each flat. Roffey Bros failed to pay the additional allowances and the case come to the Court of apply, with Glidewell LJ concluding5 that where a agreement and attenuating factors live like those in Roffey Bros, and the promisor gets in perform a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit, this will suffice to provide good concern for the promisor's promise so that it is legally binding. The conclusion replaced the notion of lawful benefit with a check of practical or factual benefit. The referees found a variety of functional benefits in Roffey Bros encompassing Williams's proceeded performance6, avoidance of the punishment clause in the major contract7, bypassing the trouble of finding a substitute,8 a more structured fee scheme giving Roffey Bros more command over William's presentation of the contract.9 None of these constituted lawful advantages as per Stilk v Myrick. The concept of practical benefit and its scope has been the subject of a wealth of academic opinion. Chen-Wishart argues that benefits such as William's continued performance; avoiding the penalty clause and not having to find a replacement confer nothing more than already promised under the original ...